This Interim Final Report covers the period from 15 August 2007 to 28 February 2010.
Appeal target: 10,969,321 Swiss francs (9,461,450 US dollars or 7,738,060 euro);
Appeal coverage: 100%;
· The Emergency Appeal for the Peru Earthquake operation was launched on 17 August 2007. It sought 1,626,000 Swiss francs (USD 1,341,869 US dollars or 979,150 Euros) to assist 4,000 families (20,000 people) for a five-month period.
· Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF): 250,000 Swiss francs (207,641 US dollars or 151,515 Euros) was initially allocated from the Federation's DREF to support the National Society response.
· The Revised Appeal was launched on 20 August 2007 featuring a Revised Appeal Budget for 5,605,000 Swiss francs (4,655,315 US dollars or 3,396,970 Euros) for nine months to assist 7,500 families (37,500 people).
· A second revision of the Appeal Budget was made on 3 December 2007 for 10,895,000 Swiss francs (9,917,000 US dollars or 6,785,000 Euros) for 18 months (February 2009) to assist 7,500 families (37,500 people).
· The Operations Update n° 7 featured an extension of the timeframe until 31 December 2009.
· The Operations Update n° 8 was issued with a third revision of the Appeal Budget for 11,017,248 Swiss francs (9,790,411 US dollars or 7,201,756 Euros).
· Operations Update n°10 included a fourth revision of the Appeal Budget to 10,468,864.04 Swiss francs and in Operations Update nº11 the timeframe was extended until 28 February 2010.
Summary: The Peru Earthquake International Federation of the Red Cross Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) Operation was the three-phase comprehensive response of the to the 7.9 (Mw) seism that impacted the Peruvian coast on 15 August 2007. The combined action of the Peruvian Red Cross and the IFRC provided emergency relief to 19,891 families exceeding the original target of 7,500 families (37,500 people), bringing shelter and basic non-food relief items. The operation provided psychosocial support to approximately 18,000 children and adults. The IFRC responded the affected population's need for water, providing 7,975,500 litres of clean water to 44 communities.
During the second phase of the operation, 6,308 transitional housing facilities were built by the Peruvian Red Cross, the IFRC and Partner National Societies (PNS), reaching 6,008 families, of whom 1,028 were provided by the IFRC mainly in the province of Pisco. In the third phase of the operation - the comprehensive participatory rehabilitation programme - the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement rebuilt and repaired 36 community facilities such as health centres and schools. In cooperation with the target families the Movement built 761 seismic resistant houses. Vulnerable families in 13 communities now inhabit 592 of them, built with support of the IFRC's secretariat programme.
The most important achievement of the programme has been the change in the way the community interacts and supports one another. They are now empowered to lead their own development. A strong community is a community less prone to the risk of disasters and is better prepared to respond to them.
The operation had a participatory nature, requiring the concurrent action of the families, communities, cooperation agencies and the Movement. The activities were planned and revised taken in account an environmental impact assessment, the opinion of the community members and regular operation team meetings.
The Participatory Programme Review (PPR) carried out in the third quarter 2009 reported some long-term recommendations for future operations such as:
· Supporting programmes for affected volunteers.
· Considering a more integrated and longer-term psychosocial support programme.
· Developing clear community guidelines on the commitment required by the programme.
· Considering working with community leaders to ensure transparency in the beneficiary selection process.
· Considering a work for food programme within the participatory reconstruction process.
· Develop specific training for those involved in participatory building.
At the coordination level the PPR suggested to work closer with local governments and authorities so it can better support communities, to have a clear assignation of roles and duties within the Movement and offices and to consider taking on a greater role in coordinating Movement's activities in the field.